Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42

Thread: 8x10 Vertical Tank Development Issues

  1. #21
    Tin Can's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22,385

    Re: 8x10 Vertical Tank Development Issues

    Almost all film was Dip Tanks for decades

    X_Ray also used Dip & Dunk and roll processors, which guide any film into dark box tanks with rollers, I had one, it went to the dump, way too Rube Goldberg

    I have 2 NOS 3.5x17" Industrial SS film dunkers, which used 7X17" X-Ray film cut in 1/2, 2 films to each 'holder'. I posted pics several years ago. I had a source, then they folded

    I have huge amounts of 1 sided X-Ray up to 14X17"

    I test with double side, it works fine

    Jim Noel loves X-Ray as it is closest to very old film

    I like the way Mr Noel thinks

    I suspect that since I have been on this forum, many are 'Mad' we don't keep buying the 'good? stuff'

    It was a real problem when I was learning, so many, said so many odd things

    My point is if you can process 2X X-Ray well, you can be happy and process ANY film!





    Quote Originally Posted by LabRat View Post
    I use dip tanks with even results... Was trained to lift hangers slowly/evenly and allow a pause of a few seconds when tilted/lifted, then re-immersed slow evenly... The "agitation" is not from the movement, but from complete draining of the film sheet...My agitation cycle is once every minute (after initial agitation of 1 minute), and 10 or 12 seconds for the cycle... Don't use undiluted developers, and I use a water bath for 5 minutes beforehand with a tiny trace of PF...

    Some developers don't behave well with different developing systems, so try another developer before running into the night screaming... ;-)

    Happy holidays!!!

    Steve K

  2. #22

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    SooooCal/LA USA
    Posts
    2,802

    Re: 8x10 Vertical Tank Development Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by paulbarden View Post
    Is this with X-ray films, or conventional (pictorial) films?
    Conventional film, but just starting to use double sided X-ray soon... I expect it should work ok, but haven't tried yet...

    Steve K

  3. #23

    Re: 8x10 Vertical Tank Development Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Tin Can View Post
    IDK

    I love my old ARKAY gas burst tanks

    I use only clean KODAK hangers with are full of holes, unlike others, no soap or Foto flow EVER

    As soon as possible I drop them in, cover and quicky push my button to start my air burbles

    Usually 10 seconds of continuous bubbles, rest for 50 seconds and again 10 seconds bubbles usually 7 tp 10 minutes

    Then fresh still water stop, and into TF5 also gas burst, time varies by film

    Almost always Rodinol 1-100

    I only get negs like yours if I cut the time way too short

    Here is one I played way too short just to see

    I learned my method by ignoring way too much advice

    DIY is really teach yourself

    3 810 2-1 Macro by TIN CAN COLLEGE, on Flickr

    Then quick flow wash

    These are pretty violent bubbles
    Completely agree. Gas burst was the industry standard for 50 years when the photographers dropped off their sheet film for roll or for C41 or E6 processing. Wrote an article in View Camera in their May/June 2007 edition that details the process even with pyro in conventional hangers without a hitch. Perfect even development every time at the flip of a switch including stand or semi stand development. The standards were established in a 3.5 gallon tank with 5/8" rise during the burst. The key is understanding that in the short burst nitrogen the development is accomplished when the fluid column is uniformly lifted which is the effective agitation. The Kodak article lays it out very effectively.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,009

    Re: 8x10 Vertical Tank Development Issues

    For the record, Kodak Z-131 and Z-119 make it pretty clear that gas-burst alone is not really recommended for colour processing in sink-line/ deep tanks of the sort discussed here - the instructions are clear that the optimal approach is manual agitation and gas for C-41, manual for E-6, though you can use gas alone for E-6 sheets - with the inevitable 'if you get satisfactory uniformity' caveat.

  5. #25

    Re: 8x10 Vertical Tank Development Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by interneg View Post
    For the record, Kodak Z-131 and Z-119 make it pretty clear that gas-burst alone is not really recommended for colour processing in sink-line/ deep tanks of the sort discussed here - the instructions are clear that the optimal approach is manual agitation and gas for C-41, manual for E-6, though you can use gas alone for E-6 sheets - with the inevitable 'if you get satisfactory uniformity' caveat.
    I read both documents you mentioned in the comment above and you are arriving at an incorrect conclusion with gaseous burst for sink line/deep tanks. What you are missing is the fact that there were independent manufacturers that build sink line processing equipment with smaller tanks (obviously using less chemistry and less cost) whereas Kodak standardized their technical literature on 3.5 gallon tanks for self serving objectives (ie. sell as much chemistry as possible and have to research one processing solution for their product line with color and B&W). The caveat in this technical literature is that every time someone had a problem with processing C41 and E6 with these smaller sink line tanks they would call Kodak customer service to complain and try to lay the blame on them. The "if you can get satisfactory results" comments from my perspective is nothing more than legal indemnification for Kodak - nothing more substantive than that. The next effect is one can get satisfactory results (and many have over the years) but it is up to you to work out the processing protocol as each tank size has its own unique process requirements. Kodak recommends rack and tank processing with gaseous burst with the exception of the stabilizer and final rinse because it creates excessive bubbles. Kodak goes to great length in the articles you mentioned to specify the size of the bubbles for gaseous burst and the fluid rise (5/8" fluid rise) consistent with their aforementioned article for B&W processing. So the issue here is not gaseous processing at all, it is how one goes about it and the request to standardize to Kodak optimal recommendations. Same thing happens with B&W processing as we speak. You buy or build tanks smaller or for that matter larger than the 3.5 gallon Kodak standard and your results are your responsibility to fine tune.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    1,993

    Re: 8x10 Vertical Tank Development Issues

    Gas burst, like other processes, has many variables. It needs to be carefully designed, and flexible enough so that it can be adjusted for different films, film formats and chemistry. As with dip/dunk, generally the larger the film format, the trickier it will be to get a high degree of uniformity.

    None of this is of help to OP though. If his budget is such that he is resorting to x-ray film, he’s not in the market for a custom nitrogen burst system.

  7. #27

    Re: 8x10 Vertical Tank Development Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R View Post

    None of this is of help to OP though. If his budget is such that he is resorting to x-ray film, he’s not in the market for a custom nitrogen burst system.
    True. But someone with similar interests down the road may consider this alternative and do more investigation. As they old saying goes. There are any number of ways to get to Grandma's house for dinner.

  8. #28
    Tin Can's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22,385

    Re: 8x10 Vertical Tank Development Issues

    My B&W Gas Burst still running fine for 7 years

    I use Rodinal 1 shot, distilled water stop, TF5 lasts too long, I test it every run and change by sheet count

    I would like to make a better plenum

    next life

    I have 2 tank sets, the rest is DIY

    https://youtu.be/9DddOzSUeRc

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    1,993

    Re: 8x10 Vertical Tank Development Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Kadillak View Post
    True. But someone with similar interests down the road may consider this alternative and do more investigation. As they old saying goes. There are any number of ways to get to Grandma's house for dinner.
    That’s true. Point taken.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,009

    Re: 8x10 Vertical Tank Development Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Kadillak View Post
    I read both documents you mentioned in the comment above and you are arriving at an incorrect conclusion with gaseous burst for sink line/deep tanks. What you are missing is the fact that there were independent manufacturers that build sink line processing equipment with smaller tanks (obviously using less chemistry and less cost) whereas Kodak standardized their technical literature on 3.5 gallon tanks for self serving objectives (ie. sell as much chemistry as possible and have to research one processing solution for their product line with color and B&W). The caveat in this technical literature is that every time someone had a problem with processing C41 and E6 with these smaller sink line tanks they would call Kodak customer service to complain and try to lay the blame on them. The "if you can get satisfactory results" comments from my perspective is nothing more than legal indemnification for Kodak - nothing more substantive than that. The next effect is one can get satisfactory results (and many have over the years) but it is up to you to work out the processing protocol as each tank size has its own unique process requirements. Kodak recommends rack and tank processing with gaseous burst with the exception of the stabilizer and final rinse because it creates excessive bubbles. Kodak goes to great length in the articles you mentioned to specify the size of the bubbles for gaseous burst and the fluid rise (5/8" fluid rise) consistent with their aforementioned article for B&W processing. So the issue here is not gaseous processing at all, it is how one goes about it and the request to standardize to Kodak optimal recommendations. Same thing happens with B&W processing as we speak. You buy or build tanks smaller or for that matter larger than the 3.5 gallon Kodak standard and your results are your responsibility to fine tune.
    If Kodak made the recommendation, it wasn't because of some self-serving marketing objective, but because it dramatically reduced the potential for user error. They will have likely tested every variable you can think of & several you can't to almost ludicrous levels of rigour. Other equipment manufacturers, specifically those who didn't collaborate with film manufacturer's R&D, seem to have had rather more lax standards. Kodak's data has a very significant safety margin built-in, so you might get away with some pretty serious departures from their recommendations & still be OK. That doesn't mean Kodak's claims are wrong. Rack-and-tank dip/dunk machines effectively deliver a lot more mechanical agitation than you seem to think, especially compared to a small deep tank system.

Similar Threads

  1. Film, scanning or development issues?
    By Tim Shawcross in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 28-Jun-2020, 05:01
  2. Film Development Issues - White Stripes on Negative
    By Simone1981 in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 15-Jan-2017, 08:46
  3. Vertical tank for stand developing 8x10?
    By Mark Sawyer in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 23-May-2011, 18:01
  4. 4x5 vertical tank
    By John Cahill in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 3-Dec-2006, 13:24

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •